Meeting minutes
Agenda
Kaz: would suggest we talk about three different topics separately
… i.e., WoT Architecture, WoT Profile, and the next WG Charter
… today, we should focus on the WoT Profile and the WoT Architecture
Lagally: ok
Potential Invited Expert
Lagally: got an inquiry from an engineer
McCool: please note the procedure for IE is different from the one for an invited guest for a meeting
Kaz: please forward the information to team-wot
Main call resolution
Lagally: we made a resolution during the main call yesterday on Oct 26
Use the current Architecture CR draft as the basis of a CR to be finalized tomorrow Oct 27 in the Architecture TF call by merging those PRs currently on the table (PRs 865, 863, 862, 860, 858, 856 and 855) that have unanimous consensus and a call for resolution for CR transition will be made by email immediately after the meeting. If there are no objections within 24 hours of the email the Architecture draft will proceed with CR transition.
Lagally: wondering about a possible smaller discussion with active participants
McCool: we could have an additional Testfest around Dec 12
… note we can't waste time
Kaz: sorry but which spec are we talking about, WoT Architecture or WoT Profiles?
McCool: Testfest would be useful for all the specs
Kaz: however, it's just a possible method for acceleration
… we should rather think about the CR/PR transitions for each spec as the milestones
… so which to start with?
Lagally: let's start with the WoT Architecture
WoT Architecture
Schedule
Lagally: CR around Dec 15
… PR around Jan 31
McCool: in that case, CR Transition Request to be made around Dec 8
… think those dates are feasible
Lagally: ok
… (updates the schedule MD with the proposed dates)
McCool: WG resolution to be made earlier
Lagally: getting better understanding about the schedule
Kaz: have you added the WG resolution date to the schedule, Lagally?
Lagally: let me see
Kaz: maybe also "Dec 8, 202" at the latest
Remaining PRs
McCool: the resolution during the main call was to see the remaining PRs
Sebastian: checked with Matthias Kovatch about this
… would be better to keep his affiliation with Huawei
merged
PR 865 - Adding terminology "WoT Profile"
McCool: added some comments
Lagally: another comment from Sebastian about the definition of "out-of-the-box"
McCool: I'm OK with Sebastian's proposed definition for WoT Profile
Sebastian: a subset of the Thing Description specification which provides additional set of restrictive assertions such that any Consumer which conforms with the those assertions is out-of-the-box interoperable with any Thing which also conforms with those assertions.
McCool: may have additional assertions than the ones from TD
Sebastian: TD doesn't say how to deal with the errors
McCool: not just around TD
Kaz: technically, the definition of "WoT Profiles" spec should be extracted from the Abstract section of the "WoT Profiles" spec itself
… but if the description there is not enough, we need to regenerate some text
… and I basically agree with McCool
Ege: assertions around Consumer behaviors
Kaz: do we really need to talk about the assertion level description for this PR 865 which is simply about the definition of "WoT Profiles" within a few lines?
McCool: right
Ege: agree with the definition itself
Sebastian: OK with the definition for "WoT Profiles" itself
… should have another definition for "Out-of-box", though
(merged)
PR 856 - Additional terminology entry for Web Object
McCool: I'm not really sure what "Web Object" here means
Lagally: (shoes Toumura-san's diagram)
Toumura-san's diagram on "Things and Consumers"
Ege: what is the difference with "Servient"?
Lagally: very different
Ege: what about a Servient as a gateway?
Lagally: Web Object is a broader entity
Sebastian: I'm also a bit confused
… why we call it "Web Object"?
… which technology do you want to address using that?
<Ege> +1 on kaz
<sebastian> +1 on kaz
Kaz: I'm OK with adding this kind of new terminology if really needed
… but the terminology is not really used at all
Lagally: potentially would be used by the WoT Profiles spec
McCool: what about the current situation?
Lagally: not used yet
Kaz: so would suggest we keep it open and see how to deal with the term by which specs
Ege: maybe it would be better to say "WoT Object"
… "Web Object" sounds too generic to me
Lagally: ok
(keep opened)
McCool: also not a blocking issue for CR transition
Kaz: so we should remove the label of "by CR transition"
<sebastian> back
PR 862 - Switch Profile to non-normative section
Sebastian: we have a WD for the WoT Profiles specification
… should be aligned with the section 7
Ege: if that section is normative, we need to clarify the assertions from that section
Kaz: to be clear, it's around section "7.3 Profiles"
… and given the "WoT Profiles" specification is still a WD, we need to make the section "7.3 Profiles" of the WoT Architecture spec non-normative
How to proceed
McCool: we need to clarify how to proceed based on the resolution during the main call
… we can send an email about the current situation to the whole WG
Sebastian: what about PR 862 itself?
Kaz: as I've already mentioned 5 mins ago, it should be merged
Lagally: would object
Kaz: we can send an email about the situation to the whole WG based on today's discussion
Lagally: would like to summarize the situation for that purpose
<mlagally_> proposal: Michael L sends an email to the WoT WG and IG with the following content: Following the resolution of the main call we discussed 3 of the PRs and resolved them. We did not get consensus on 862, 860, and would use the current version as CR candidate, unless we receive an objection within 24 hours..
<mlagally_> proposal: Michael L sends an email to the WoT WG and IG with the following content: Following the resolution of the main call we discussed 3 of the PRs and resolved them. We did not get consensus on 862, 860, 858 and 855. Implementing the resolution from the main call yesterday, we would use the current version as CR candidate, unless we receive an objection within 24 hours..
<mlagally_> proposal: Michael L sends an email to the WoT WG and IG with the following content: Following the resolution of the main call we discussed 7 of the PRs and resolved them. We did not get consensus on 862, 860, 858 and 855. Implementing the resolution from the main call yesterday, we would use the current version as CR candidate, unless we receive an objection within 24 hours..
<mlagally_> proposal: Michael L sends an email to the WoT WG and IG with the following content: Following the resolution of the main call we discussed 7 of the PRs and incorporated 3 of them. We did not get consensus on 862, 860, 858 and 855. Implementing the resolution from the main call yesterday, we would use the current version as CR candidate, unless we receive an objection within 24 hours..
RESOLUTION: Michael L sends an email to the WoT WG and IG with the following content: Following the resolution of the main call we discussed 7 of the PRs and incorporated 3 of them. We did not get consensus on 862, 860, 858 and 855. Implementing the resolution from the main call yesterday, we would use the current version as CR candidate, unless we receive an objection within 24 hours..
[adjourned]